Low HR Training

musings on MAF HR (Read 1382 times)

I hope someone else other than just myself will find this interesting... it is about finding or confirming a HR that's closest to the maximal aerobic function/MAF. (other than MAF tests, because they may not improve at the start anyway!... and forget VO2max testing too)

yes we all know about the 180-age and the adjustments but that may not be all there's to it.

there is mainly 3 areas in this topic that I want to talk about here: 1) subjective feelings 2) subjective feeling of overall load / overtraining risk 3) other things

1) as for subjective feelings; I heard about mittleman zones recently and it got me really interested as to whether you can really define MAF by subjective feelings (and of course by your other experiences) relating to a specific HR range.

the zones: OK, first, I'm not sure if I fully understand the relationship between MAF vs MAP and MEP. I assume the MAF is at the top of MAP because it's all fat burning and just as importantly, you are supposed to be able to do as many MAP workouts as you wish without overtraining (well, of course only until a point but let's just say the risk of overtraining is much lower) and MEP is reserved for only a couple of days every week. and the same is true for MAF as for MAP, you can do a lot of MAF workouts without risk of overtraining... then I assume MEP is where you burn 50% fat or a bit less because we perhaps go a bit beyond the MAF deflection point. that is readily apparent if you look at mittleman's way of calculating MAP and MEP where the top of MEP will usually be quite a few beats above your calculated MAF. for me the calculated MAF is actually the top of calculated MAP and lowest point of calculated MEP range.

so if we go by that, then checking out the subjective feelings regarding mittleman's zones seem to confirm my calculated 180-age-etc MAF pretty well.

the subjective feelings: I'm told MAP is basically the zone where you are breathing easily, have good peripheral vision, things are passing you in "slow motion" and I'd also add (may be different for other people) my brain is "switched on" and is totally idle looking around in the world or ready for thinking about things, it isn't distracted/absent-minded.

well for me it seems that zone starts about where my MAF ceiling is and goes below that.

going above that HR/MAF, which for me is somewhere between 150 and 155 and is calculated to be 153 (I am 27 and I didn't subtract or add anything) but for some reason I usually like to go by 151-152 for a ceiling on most days, my brain will start to switch off into deep meditation because it is so distracted from everything else. time will start to go on faster, or rather, I just don't notice time passing anymore. so workouts in the HR range above MAF are really nice because it will never be really boring. I will finish them as if I was just coming out of some sort of meditation. HR for this for me is high 150's and higher (leading up to 173-178 or so).

and then if I go beyond 162-163 or so, I'll start to feel this subtle strain we once discussed in another thread with, I think, GMoney. it's so very subtle, it was impossible to notice for me first, until I started training in the high 150's later. when I went to high 150's that "strain" thing was just gone and that's how I even noticed its existence. I remember one specific run where I got bored with checking the HRM (every minute or so I would get reminded to check HRM) and I noticed that I can control pace going by this "strain" thing. well it maybe wasn't as fine tuned a control as using the HRM but it was neat enough. now at that point I would be leaving the MEP.

(then just to complete this description, at 178-183 I start feeling the strain more noticeably.. and beyond 183 it gradually becomes uncomfortable more and more.)

brain/mental stuff: so back to MAF, the interesting thing is that since I've been doing MAF workouts, which really means a bit below MAF of course, I've had this problem about my brain not being able to switch off like it used to before and time doesn't go faster anymore. and this means I lost my tolerance for doing loops over the same boring track (plus I get to have too much time to stress about stupid things relating to my performance, etc.). that means I have to find new routes all the time so I don't go mad. yeah, I could use the MAF running time for thinking about things but I do enough of that all day anyway. when I go running I prefer not having to think. so if I go for new routes then I can spend the time by looking around at interesting things I pass and stuff like that and not have to think.

2) now about load / overtraining: since I've been doing MAF/below MAF (or you can call it MAP, really) workouts, I feel no training load overall. I wake up every day and go out for the workout as if the previous day was a rest day. seems so anyway. my resting HR confirms this. it is no different on tuesdays (before going MAF, my RHR was higher on the day after a rest day, now no more). after the first 1 week of MAF'ing my RHR went lower (previously it was too high because of a bit of overreaching before) and since then it is pretty much the same (nice low).

as for my experience with too much load: if we take mittleman's MEP/SAP zone, I was doing 4 of those every week in january and I was doing 5 of those weekly in february. I did not know what a recovery run meant (i.e. MAP/MAF). recovery just meant rest day. so obviously I had too little recovery in february. and I felt its effects, had to sleep a lot more, eat a lot more, some sore spots about the legs, sore-ish throat, blahblah. I got used to the load after a while but it was still not optimal. because: RHR went high and pace at low-ish HR got reduced. no injuries though, I didn't stretch it that far (reduced pace was enough warning to me).

so anyway where I wanted to get at with all this rambling is that with the correct MAF ceiling you should not have to experience overtraining like that. and I certainly have not yet felt any of it with MAF training 6 days a week...

3) legs / etc: the only exceptions from this above: firstly, if I do a long 2 hour workout then my joints can complain a bit. they are just getting used to this. but interestingly, before MAF, these 2 hour workouts did not affect my joints like this. interesting, interesting. and this leads to the second thing, which is my legs behaving differently since doing MAF workouts. calves aside, my legs found a pace that will keep me below MAF and it is hard to break out of that pace. I mean, changing the pace to a faster one feels very bad. however, after I made the pace change, everything feels great again. it is almost like I have to convince the slow twitchers to give up the work to the faster twitchers. of course this may not be the cause of it at all but that's what it feels like!

so this was my list of what could confirm MAF HR.

I wonder if anyone else found indicators of where their MAF HR / HR range is?

this could be quite useful to newbies too who are worrying about their MAF tests not improving yet :P

plus, the MAF test can and will improve even if you are doing workouts above MAF. so not a specific enough indicator to find the MAF HR.

in any case, I'm glad I found all this info about MAF (thanks to this forum!) and MAP/MEP (thanks GMoney!), it has allowed me to discover an entire, to me totally new, HR range for training and recovery. I believe my main issue before finding out all about MAF was I did not understand how to do recovery runs and yeah, how to burn fat either. well, for that matter, I couldn't even have been able to actually RUN in that HR range at that time. now I can and it's great to be able to do that.

Some think the ultimate would be to know what your effort levels are exactly from body cues. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

One person's subjective cues are most likely different than another's. Although, breathing hard with a burning chest is pretty universal when it comes to knowing you are completely anaerobic and approaching MHR. Personally, I haven't put my mind oncoming up with a system of body cues. I enjoy using my gadgets, and never feel weighed down or enslavened. I confirmed my MAF with a RQ test (which came as part of a V02max test). I also confirmed my LT. I think once you know those two things, you're good to go. Dr. Phil's adjustments are the next best thing to am RQ test. I know that if my MAF tests get back to the range of 9:00, I can add 5 beats to it. That will take at least another 6 months to a year. Right now, I'm progressing without injury, and have not been injured since 2007, and my MAF is right on with 180-age with no adjustments. If you want to confirm, get an RQ test, or go with Dr. Phil's adjustments, and if you are progressing and feeling good, then you're all set. I'm all for someone trying to come up with a body cue system for themselves if that's what they want to do. The HRM can be an aid in that creation.

Some think the ultimate would be to know what your effort levels are exactly from body cues. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

. Right now, I'm progressing without injury, and have not been injured since 2007, and my MAF is right on with 180-age with no adjustments.

--Jimmy

I have not been injury since 2008. Maf +5 fells good. Maff-8 is a bit slow but it has kept me injury-free. Before I started using the garmin I could pace my easy run by the amount of perspiration on my forehead. Running by feel is why a number of of us here.

3) legs / etc: the only exceptions from this above: firstly, if I do a long 2 hour workout then my joints can complain a bit. they are just getting used to this. but interestingly, before MAF, these 2 hour workouts did not affect my joints like this. interesting, interesting. and this leads to the second thing, which is my legs behaving differently since doing MAF workouts. calves aside, my legs found a pace that will keep me below MAF and it is hard to break out of that pace. I mean, changing the pace to a faster one feels very bad. however, after I made the pace change, everything feels great again. it is almost like I have to convince the slow twitchers to give up the work to the faster twitchers. of course this may not be the cause of it at all but that's what it feels like!

What is the difference in time on feet with the 2 hour workouts? Maff vs non-Maff. Walking a 13:45 pace vs running the same pace was causing knee problems. Now I l walk a 16:30 pace are slower. Walking kept the HR lower.

Date:

1/20/2010 5:35 AM

Type:

walk

Distance:

7 miles

Duration:

1:35:51.09

Pace:

13:42 / mile

Weight:

161 lb

Heart Rate:

Rest: 51 / Average: 110 / Max: 126

Weather:

44° F

Run until the trail runs out.

2200 miles ---2015

50miler 13:26:18

Race Less Train More

Pistol 100 ----01/03/15 27:46:58

The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff

Some think the ultimate would be to know what your effort levels are exactly from body cues. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

One person's subjective cues are most likely different than another's. Although, breathing hard with a burning chest is pretty universal when it comes to knowing you are completely anaerobic and approaching MHR. Personally, I haven't put my mind oncoming up with a system of body cues. I enjoy using my gadgets, and never feel weighed down or enslavened. I confirmed my MAF with a RQ test (which came as part of a V02max test). I also confirmed my LT. I think once you know those two things, you're good to go. Dr. Phil's adjustments are the next best thing to am RQ test. I know that if my MAF tests get back to the range of 9:00, I can add 5 beats to it. That will take at least another 6 months to a year. Right now, I'm progressing without injury, and have not been injured since 2007, and my MAF is right on with 180-age with no adjustments. If you want to confirm, get an RQ test, or go with Dr. Phil's adjustments, and if you are progressing and feeling good, then you're all set. I'm all for someone trying to come up with a body cue system for themselves if that's what they want to do. The HRM can be an aid in that creation.

--Jimmy

hehe, sorry, but at least the burning chest is not universal. I don't ever have that even at 200+ (also no palpitations).

anyway, the cues I was thinking of were more generic than pain here or there.

but yeah, it is not easy, this is why we have the HRM. without experience, the HRM will tell you a lot more than other indicators. though as I'm gaining some experience, I seem to have less of a reliance on the HRM.

you are also less reliant on the HRM as you already know when you can add the 5 beats. I'm still noob-ish regarding MAF training so I wouldn't be able to say when or at what pace I can add 5. probably not for a long time

I guess ultimate goal is being able to run without a HRM but I will still keep the HRM - I love it and love numbers.

and I'd love an RQ test but it seems I would have to move to another country first to get that. (right now I live in a small non-english country... you know the world is not just the USA - sadly)

as for "feeling good" that can have many different meanings. I feel good with MAF but it's very different from feeling good in the MAF+10 zone. both are good, yet still different. the difference is partially subjective - and partially objective: even though I felt good, doing only MAF+10 runs started to hurt me after a few weeks (I noticed and stopped in time). MAF runs don't seem to hurt in this way. this is also one of the indicators, or I'd like to believe that at least but this difference could not be seen at the start! took time.

I have not been injury since 2008. Maf +5 fells good. Maff-8 is a bit slow but it has kept me injury-free. Before I started using the garmin I could pace my easy run by the amount of perspiration on my forehead. Running by feel is why a number of of us here.

3) legs / etc: the only exceptions from this above: firstly, if I do a long 2 hour workout then my joints can complain a bit. they are just getting used to this. but interestingly, before MAF, these 2 hour workouts did not affect my joints like this. interesting, interesting. and this leads to the second thing, which is my legs behaving differently since doing MAF workouts. calves aside, my legs found a pace that will keep me below MAF and it is hard to break out of that pace. I mean, changing the pace to a faster one feels very bad. however, after I made the pace change, everything feels great again. it is almost like I have to convince the slow twitchers to give up the work to the faster twitchers. of course this may not be the cause of it at all but that's what it feels like!

What is the difference in time on feet with the 2 hour workouts? Maff vs non-Maff. Walking a 13:45 pace vs running the same pace was causing knee problems. Now I l walk a 16:30 pace are slower. Walking kept the HR lower.

why MAF-8? MAF-0 isn't the same? I'm honestly curious.

as for the 2 hours affecting me differently under MAF, I don't know the reason. sure, I'd like to know

and I'd love an RQ test but it seems I would have to move to another country first to get that. (right now I live in a small non-english country... you know the world is not just the USA - sadly)

I'm not sure where you live, and don't need to know, but you might be surprised. The testing is old technology and many universities and gyms around the world have testing labs or kits.If there are elite athletes in your country, it's more probable you can find the test. If you find someone who does V02max tests, make sure to ask if they measure RQ.

Ultimately, it is not necessary. I've been doing MAF for nearly 5 years, and only recently had the test. Dr. Phil's guidelines are solid, and if you're over 60, Mark Allen's suggestions are probably good. I miight be wrong about this, but I think Slowgino (70+) was tested and his MAF was determined to be higher and fell within Mark Allen;'s adjustments for 60+.

You're learning quickly. If you start to feel like crap, going sub-MAF is never a bad idea.

The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff

unsolicited chatter

I'm not sure where you live, and don't need to know, but you might be surprised. The testing is old technology and many universities and gyms around the world have testing labs or kits.If there are elite athletes in your country, it's more probable you can find the test. If you find someone who does V02max tests, make sure to ask if they measure RQ.

Ultimately, it is not necessary. I've been doing MAF for nearly 5 years, and only recently had the test. Dr. Phil's guidelines are solid, and if you're over 60, Mark Allen's suggestions are probably good. I miight be wrong about this, but I think Slowgino (70+) was tested and his MAF was determined to be higher and fell within Mark Allen;'s adjustments for 60+.

You're learning quickly. If you start to feel like crap, going sub-MAF is never a bad idea.

--Jimmy

oh, well, I checked out some vo2max tests and they didn't do RQ... I contacted one that seems to, waiting for their reply

but yeah, not that necessary, just curious to know where I started from... I can then look at it in future and laugh. hehe!

all in all, I'd be surprised if it showed something higher than low 150's for my MAF. that thinking comes from the subjective feelings/indicators

in general, I'd like to know how maff intensity and/or sub-maff intensity relates to recovery in general for other people. I've been thinking of the topic of recovery a lot, lately. because, I've been running a lot this winter, while paying close attention to my ability to handle a given load including my recovery (fun stuff!) and I found the following.

below is what I noticed. you can skip this part (in italic) if you find it too boring, and just read the last two sections instead.

if I was running everything between 156-162bpm then I felt invincible, even at a quite high mileage(higher than ever for me before), as long as I didn't add higher intensity runs. if I did add just one such run, I felt I was getting a bit close to overload. not overloaded yet but a bit too close for my liking. after such a harder run if I did a few days of running at 156-162 I was back to normal. especially if I didn't go past 160 or so.

however, if I was only running at this intensity and no higher, then I would recover from these runs pretty quick, and I felt very good all the time. very addictive runs. the most addictive intensity for me. I also saw progress in pace.

if I was running everything at around 153bpm and sometimes a couple of higher intensity runs, I felt just fine. this 153bpm always feels easy to handle even the days after the harder run days. it doesn't seem to take me to the overload point, keeps me below and it helps a lot with recovery. it feels like I could do as much at this intensity as I like, doubles too. I would say 153-154bpm is around the top part (ceiling) of my recovery intensity. my pace does not seem to slow much at this HR, but it does slow a bit if I go between 156-162.

if I was running a bit above 160-162 bpm, say, 165-170bpm, then it still felt very easy but I felt I could not do that 7 days a week without a little breaking down. a few times a week this intensity was just fine. maybe every second day, but not everyday.

otoh, 156-162 is just fine for everyday, the recovery from it takes a bit less than a full day meaning it's possible to do double runs at this intensity - but not everyday doubles. everyday doubles seemed a bit too much.

and then around 175bpm I feel like I've switched to using a lot of carbs for fuel. I can run at this 175 for quite long hours, it is way below my anaerobic threshold, quite a bit slower than my half marathon pace, I just don't like it as much as the more fat burning runs. to be honest I much prefer the lower intensity runs, they feel so comfortable and addictive, in an interesting way.

on the other hand, those high carb burning runs don't feel addictive to me. for some reason if I do too many of them that will kill the desire to run. here's an interesting analogy, I don't truly like running at 175 just like I don't like eating chocolate much :P (really!)

still, a couple of times a week I'm okay with predominantly carb burning intensity i.e. past 175. I can take that much mentally if needed. also, I'm not sure how well I would recover if I did more than 2 of these a week because I never tried that. 2 a week is okay though...

153 is supposedly MAF+5 for me if I take 5beats off for not running for more than 2 years.

I wonder if for you all, the calculated MAFHR is recovery intensity or it is a bit higher than recovery intensity or is it below it? I'm curious to see if there is invididual variability.

note, recovery intensity is defined as something you can keep doing all day and the intensity that helps recovery from harder runs because it will not take any more of your energy, it will instead lend you more energy and makes you fresh for those harder runs.

These days I feel that the MAF HR ceiling of 140-142 is a pretty good bench mark for me to use as an active recovery workout anywhere up to about 7.5 miles or so and double with them. If I get into the upper 140's to low 150's (147-152) I still consider them easy workouts and can run them for many days without feeling overly fatigued. If I throw in a Pfitzinger med-long run (10-15 miles), long run (15+ miles), LT run (15k to HM pace) or any type of speed work, I'll run at least one day following them with a MAF run.

Last year at this time that definately would not have been the case. As I become fitter and lighter, it is becoming easier for me to add miles, speed and increased duration for each run in the easy HR range.

The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff

These days I feel that the MAF HR ceiling of 140-142 is a pretty good bench mark for me to use as an active recovery workout anywhere up to about 7.5 miles or so and double with them. If I get into the upper 140's to low 150's (147-152) I still consider them easy workouts and can run them for many days without feeling overly fatigued. If I throw in a Pfitzinger med-long run (10-15 miles), long run (15+ miles), LT run (15k to HM pace) or any type of speed work, I'll run at least one day following them with a MAF run.

Last year at this time that definately would not have been the case. As I become fitter and lighter, it is becoming easier for me to add miles, speed and increased duration for each run in the easy HR range.

yeah, recovery is definitely a function of fitness too. I've also come a long way. a year ago, was 147-152 something you took longer to recovery from?